Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
Actually interesting enough insurance companies would love to get their hands on more information that determines actual risk to paying out. The better they are at doing just that the more money they'd make as an insurance company and the more competative they are in the marketplace. However since many ways of classifying people are deemed socially unacceptable (Ie how would some react if insurance companies determined that 'Black drivers' had more risk than "Asian drivers" but less risk than "White Drivers,"?) Since discriminating against 16-24 year old males was seen as socially acceptable and oddly enough actually did represent the biggest risk group by far it was a nice place to park a lot of the other inefficiencies of not being able to properly assess risk in other groups. Another contributing factor is that insurance companies don't recieve a lot of business from 16-24 year old males as that demographic doesn't usually buy complementary inrusance products such as home and life insurance or even collision insurance as commonly they aren't driving new cars. This lead to higher and higher prices placed on that demographic.
|
No arguments here. All I said is the government concluded this was lazy risk assessment and price gouging. This resulted in a much better and more egalitarian system being put in its place.
You're right though, if they could really get into demographics, people might not like the statistical racism that could come of it.